Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 711

control, N = 351

treatment, N = 361

p-value2

age

71

50.78 ± 12.63 (25 - 74)

50.48 ± 13.41 (25 - 74)

51.07 ± 12.01 (31 - 72)

0.846

gender

71

0.736

f

50 (70%)

24 (69%)

26 (72%)

m

21 (30%)

11 (31%)

10 (28%)

occupation

71

0.965

day_training

1 (1.4%)

1 (2.9%)

0 (0%)

full_time

7 (9.9%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.3%)

homemaker

6 (8.5%)

3 (8.6%)

3 (8.3%)

other

2 (2.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (5.6%)

part_time

13 (18%)

6 (17%)

7 (19%)

retired

15 (21%)

7 (20%)

8 (22%)

self_employ

2 (2.8%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (2.8%)

student

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.8%)

t_and_e

2 (2.8%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (2.8%)

unemploy

22 (31%)

12 (34%)

10 (28%)

marital

71

0.928

cohabitation

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.8%)

divore

8 (11%)

5 (14%)

3 (8.3%)

married

15 (21%)

7 (20%)

8 (22%)

none

41 (58%)

20 (57%)

21 (58%)

seperation

3 (4.2%)

2 (5.7%)

1 (2.8%)

widow

3 (4.2%)

1 (2.9%)

2 (5.6%)

edu

71

0.983

bachelor

21 (30%)

9 (26%)

12 (33%)

diploma

12 (17%)

7 (20%)

5 (14%)

hd_ad

3 (4.2%)

2 (5.7%)

1 (2.8%)

postgraduate

6 (8.5%)

3 (8.6%)

3 (8.3%)

primary

5 (7.0%)

2 (5.7%)

3 (8.3%)

secondary_1_3

7 (9.9%)

3 (8.6%)

4 (11%)

secondary_4_5

15 (21%)

8 (23%)

7 (19%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.8%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (2.8%)

fam_income

71

0.937

10001_12000

4 (5.6%)

1 (2.9%)

3 (8.3%)

12001_14000

4 (5.6%)

2 (5.7%)

2 (5.6%)

14001_16000

5 (7.0%)

2 (5.7%)

3 (8.3%)

16001_18000

2 (2.8%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (2.8%)

18001_20000

4 (5.6%)

3 (8.6%)

1 (2.8%)

20001_above

11 (15%)

6 (17%)

5 (14%)

2001_4000

9 (13%)

6 (17%)

3 (8.3%)

4001_6000

10 (14%)

4 (11%)

6 (17%)

6001_8000

7 (9.9%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.3%)

8001_10000

6 (8.5%)

2 (5.7%)

4 (11%)

below_2000

9 (13%)

4 (11%)

5 (14%)

medication

71

61 (86%)

31 (89%)

30 (83%)

0.735

onset_duration

71

15.37 ± 11.52 (0 - 56)

16.98 ± 12.86 (1 - 56)

13.80 ± 9.99 (0 - 35)

0.248

onset_age

71

35.41 ± 13.83 (14 - 64)

33.50 ± 12.73 (14 - 58)

37.26 ± 14.76 (15 - 64)

0.254

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 711

control, N = 351

treatment, N = 361

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

71

3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.29 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

0.989

recovery_stage_b

71

17.94 ± 2.63 (9 - 23)

17.86 ± 2.70 (9 - 23)

18.03 ± 2.60 (13 - 23)

0.787

ras_confidence

71

30.34 ± 4.83 (19 - 43)

29.71 ± 4.23 (19 - 40)

30.94 ± 5.34 (20 - 43)

0.287

ras_willingness

71

12.11 ± 1.97 (7 - 15)

11.94 ± 1.89 (9 - 15)

12.28 ± 2.05 (7 - 15)

0.477

ras_goal

71

17.52 ± 3.01 (12 - 24)

17.51 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)

17.53 ± 3.06 (12 - 24)

0.985

ras_reliance

71

13.17 ± 2.83 (8 - 20)

12.89 ± 2.60 (8 - 18)

13.44 ± 3.05 (8 - 20)

0.409

ras_domination

71

9.93 ± 2.26 (3 - 15)

10.43 ± 1.96 (6 - 15)

9.44 ± 2.45 (3 - 14)

0.067

symptom

71

30.10 ± 9.89 (14 - 56)

31.00 ± 9.76 (14 - 52)

29.22 ± 10.07 (15 - 56)

0.453

slof_work

71

22.63 ± 4.89 (10 - 30)

22.51 ± 4.43 (15 - 30)

22.75 ± 5.37 (10 - 30)

0.841

slof_relationship

71

25.66 ± 6.04 (11 - 35)

25.37 ± 6.28 (13 - 35)

25.94 ± 5.88 (11 - 35)

0.693

satisfaction

71

20.72 ± 6.89 (5 - 32)

19.26 ± 6.62 (5 - 29)

22.14 ± 6.94 (5 - 32)

0.078

mhc_emotional

71

11.25 ± 3.85 (3 - 18)

10.89 ± 3.42 (3 - 17)

11.61 ± 4.24 (4 - 18)

0.431

mhc_social

71

15.06 ± 5.48 (6 - 30)

15.37 ± 5.56 (7 - 30)

14.75 ± 5.47 (6 - 26)

0.636

mhc_psychological

71

22.30 ± 6.12 (6 - 36)

21.94 ± 5.79 (10 - 36)

22.64 ± 6.48 (6 - 36)

0.635

resilisnce

71

16.55 ± 4.54 (6 - 27)

16.26 ± 4.37 (6 - 24)

16.83 ± 4.75 (7 - 27)

0.597

social_provision

71

13.65 ± 2.97 (5 - 20)

13.26 ± 2.56 (8 - 20)

14.03 ± 3.32 (5 - 20)

0.278

els_value_living

71

17.28 ± 2.95 (5 - 25)

16.66 ± 2.38 (12 - 22)

17.89 ± 3.34 (5 - 25)

0.079

els_life_fulfill

71

12.83 ± 3.30 (4 - 20)

11.89 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)

13.75 ± 3.32 (4 - 20)

0.016

els

71

30.11 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

28.54 ± 4.45 (20 - 36)

31.64 ± 6.25 (9 - 45)

0.019

social_connect

71

27.03 ± 9.52 (8 - 48)

27.74 ± 8.25 (8 - 45)

26.33 ± 10.68 (8 - 48)

0.537

shs_agency

71

14.48 ± 4.98 (3 - 24)

13.89 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)

15.06 ± 5.29 (3 - 24)

0.326

shs_pathway

71

16.62 ± 3.98 (4 - 24)

16.23 ± 3.85 (8 - 24)

17.00 ± 4.11 (4 - 23)

0.418

shs

71

31.10 ± 8.49 (7 - 47)

30.11 ± 8.13 (13 - 45)

32.06 ± 8.83 (7 - 47)

0.339

esteem

71

12.66 ± 1.51 (10 - 18)

12.86 ± 1.57 (10 - 18)

12.47 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)

0.287

mlq_search

71

14.92 ± 3.36 (3 - 21)

14.80 ± 3.17 (6 - 21)

15.03 ± 3.57 (3 - 21)

0.777

mlq_presence

71

13.52 ± 4.15 (3 - 21)

13.51 ± 3.57 (5 - 20)

13.53 ± 4.70 (3 - 21)

0.989

mlq

71

28.44 ± 6.69 (6 - 42)

28.31 ± 5.95 (12 - 40)

28.56 ± 7.42 (6 - 42)

0.881

empower

71

19.52 ± 4.15 (6 - 28)

19.11 ± 3.82 (11 - 24)

19.92 ± 4.46 (6 - 28)

0.419

ismi_resistance

71

14.61 ± 2.68 (5 - 20)

14.31 ± 2.27 (11 - 19)

14.89 ± 3.03 (5 - 20)

0.370

ismi_discrimation

71

11.30 ± 3.23 (5 - 19)

12.26 ± 2.86 (5 - 18)

10.36 ± 3.33 (5 - 19)

0.012

sss_affective

71

10.00 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

10.57 ± 3.49 (3 - 18)

9.44 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)

0.219

sss_behavior

71

9.69 ± 3.97 (3 - 18)

10.49 ± 3.97 (3 - 18)

8.92 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)

0.096

sss_cognitive

71

8.32 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)

8.66 ± 4.26 (3 - 18)

8.00 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.494

sss

71

28.01 ± 10.96 (9 - 54)

29.71 ± 10.56 (9 - 54)

26.36 ± 11.23 (9 - 54)

0.199

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.14

0.206

2.74, 3.55

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.004

0.289

-0.571, 0.563

0.989

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.137

0.290

-0.432, 0.706

0.639

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.208

0.414

-0.604, 1.02

0.618

Pseudo R square

0.011

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.455

17.0, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.171

0.639

-1.08, 1.42

0.790

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.333

0.608

-1.53, 0.859

0.586

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.861

0.868

-0.840, 2.56

0.326

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.855

28.0, 31.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.23

1.201

-1.12, 3.58

0.309

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.366

0.820

-1.24, 1.97

0.658

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.252

1.173

-2.05, 2.55

0.831

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.339

11.3, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.335

0.476

-0.598, 1.27

0.484

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.639

0.322

-1.27, -0.009

0.053

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.477

0.460

-0.424, 1.38

0.305

Pseudo R square

0.028

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.533

16.5, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.013

0.748

-1.45, 1.48

0.986

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.921

0.554

-2.01, 0.164

0.103

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.53

0.792

-0.017, 3.09

0.059

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

12.9

0.465

12.0, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.559

0.653

-0.720, 1.84

0.394

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.473

0.409

-0.328, 1.27

0.253

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.595

0.585

-0.551, 1.74

0.314

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.374

9.70, 11.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.984

0.525

-2.01, 0.045

0.064

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.587

0.469

-1.51, 0.333

0.218

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.39

0.670

0.078, 2.71

0.044

Pseudo R square

0.035

symptom

(Intercept)

31.0

1.672

27.7, 34.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.78

2.348

-6.38, 2.82

0.451

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.101

1.185

-2.22, 2.42

0.932

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.746

1.697

-4.07, 2.58

0.662

Pseudo R square

0.011

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.834

20.9, 24.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.236

1.171

-2.06, 2.53

0.841

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.697

0.619

-1.91, 0.517

0.267

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.594

0.886

-2.33, 1.14

0.507

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.4

1.013

23.4, 27.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.573

1.423

-2.22, 3.36

0.688

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.02

0.901

-2.79, 0.742

0.262

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.619

1.289

-1.91, 3.15

0.634

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.3

1.185

16.9, 21.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.88

1.664

-0.379, 6.14

0.087

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.732

1.188

-1.60, 3.06

0.541

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.19

1.699

-4.52, 2.14

0.488

Pseudo R square

0.032

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.9

0.645

9.62, 12.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.725

0.906

-1.05, 2.50

0.426

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.445

0.542

-0.617, 1.51

0.416

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.11

0.776

-2.63, 0.413

0.161

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.4

0.960

13.5, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.621

1.348

-3.26, 2.02

0.646

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.03

0.906

-0.749, 2.80

0.264

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.53

1.296

-4.07, 1.01

0.244

Pseudo R square

0.015

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.9

1.087

19.8, 24.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.696

1.526

-2.29, 3.69

0.650

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.594

1.026

-1.42, 2.61

0.566

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.61

1.468

-4.49, 1.27

0.279

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.734

14.8, 17.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.576

1.030

-1.44, 2.60

0.577

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.180

0.721

-1.23, 1.59

0.804

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.370

1.031

-1.65, 2.39

0.721

Pseudo R square

0.009

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.512

12.3, 14.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.771

0.719

-0.639, 2.18

0.287

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.923

0.559

-2.02, 0.172

0.105

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.899

0.799

-0.666, 2.46

0.266

Pseudo R square

0.042

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.497

15.7, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.23

0.698

-0.136, 2.60

0.081

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.273

0.451

-0.611, 1.16

0.548

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.192

0.645

-1.46, 1.07

0.768

Pseudo R square

0.039

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.9

0.523

10.9, 12.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.86

0.734

0.425, 3.30

0.013

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.896

0.489

-0.061, 1.85

0.074

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.883

0.699

-2.25, 0.487

0.213

Pseudo R square

0.068

els

(Intercept)

28.5

0.915

26.7, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.10

1.286

0.576, 5.62

0.018

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.15

0.772

-0.366, 2.66

0.145

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.05

1.105

-3.21, 1.12

0.349

Pseudo R square

0.064

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.7

1.613

24.6, 30.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.41

2.265

-5.85, 3.03

0.536

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.789

1.146

-1.46, 3.04

0.495

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.976

1.640

-4.19, 2.24

0.555

Pseudo R square

0.009

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.9

0.843

12.2, 15.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.17

1.184

-1.15, 3.49

0.326

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.278

0.775

-1.24, 1.80

0.722

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.469

1.109

-1.71, 2.64

0.675

Pseudo R square

0.020

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.2

0.670

14.9, 17.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.771

0.942

-1.07, 2.62

0.415

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.343

0.591

-0.816, 1.50

0.565

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.362

0.846

-2.02, 1.30

0.671

Pseudo R square

0.007

shs

(Intercept)

30.1

1.427

27.3, 32.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.94

2.005

-1.99, 5.87

0.336

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.624

1.237

-1.80, 3.05

0.617

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.112

1.771

-3.36, 3.58

0.950

Pseudo R square

0.015

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.239

12.4, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.385

0.336

-1.04, 0.274

0.255

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.160

0.353

-0.532, 0.852

0.653

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.173

0.504

-0.814, 1.16

0.733

Pseudo R square

0.021

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.576

13.7, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.228

0.808

-1.36, 1.81

0.779

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.381

0.668

-1.69, 0.928

0.571

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.347

0.954

-1.52, 2.22

0.718

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.5

0.688

12.2, 14.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.013

0.967

-1.88, 1.91

0.989

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.124

0.737

-1.57, 1.32

0.867

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.253

1.054

-1.81, 2.32

0.812

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq

(Intercept)

28.3

1.147

26.1, 30.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.241

1.611

-2.92, 3.40

0.881

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.510

1.263

-2.99, 1.96

0.688

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.597

1.805

-2.94, 4.13

0.742

Pseudo R square

0.002

empower

(Intercept)

19.1

0.684

17.8, 20.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.802

0.961

-1.08, 2.69

0.406

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.264

0.583

-1.41, 0.879

0.653

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.400

0.834

-2.03, 1.24

0.634

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.427

13.5, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.575

0.600

-0.601, 1.75

0.341

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.175

0.556

-0.914, 1.26

0.754

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.306

0.793

-1.86, 1.25

0.701

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.3

0.535

11.2, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.90

0.751

-3.37, -0.423

0.014

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.519

0.502

-1.50, 0.465

0.307

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.942

0.718

-0.466, 2.35

0.197

Pseudo R square

0.062

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.6

0.627

9.34, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.13

0.881

-2.85, 0.599

0.204

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.201

0.506

-0.790, 1.19

0.694

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.06

0.723

-2.48, 0.354

0.149

Pseudo R square

0.046

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.5

0.636

9.24, 11.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.57

0.893

-3.32, 0.180

0.082

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.311

0.618

-1.52, 0.900

0.617

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.418

0.883

-2.15, 1.31

0.639

Pseudo R square

0.054

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.66

0.663

7.36, 9.96

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.657

0.932

-2.48, 1.17

0.483

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

0.510

0.021, 2.02

0.052

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.82

0.730

-3.25, -0.389

0.017

Pseudo R square

0.039

sss

(Intercept)

29.7

1.791

26.2, 33.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.35

2.515

-8.28, 1.58

0.186

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.01

1.303

-1.54, 3.57

0.441

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.34

1.865

-6.99, 0.319

0.081

Pseudo R square

0.050

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.74, 3.55], t(104) = 15.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.56], t(104) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -3.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.71], t(104) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.58])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.02], t(104) = 0.50, p = 0.616; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.84])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [16.97, 18.75], t(104) = 39.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.42], t(104) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.86], t(104) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.56], t(104) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.96])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [28.04, 31.39], t(104) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.58], t(104) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.97], t(104) = 0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.05, 2.55], t(104) = 0.21, p = 0.830; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.94 (95% CI [11.28, 12.61], t(104) = 35.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.27], t(104) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.27, -8.72e-03], t(104) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -4.34e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.38], t(104) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.51 (95% CI [16.47, 18.56], t(104) = 32.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.48], t(104) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 4.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.16], t(104) = -1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.02, 3.09], t(104) = 1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-5.31e-03, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.89 (95% CI [11.98, 13.80], t(104) = 27.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.84], t(104) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.27], t(104) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.74], t(104) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.70, 11.16], t(104) = 27.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.04], t(104) = -1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.33], t(104) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.39, 95% CI [0.08, 2.71], t(104) = 2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [0.04, 1.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [27.72, 34.28], t(104) = 18.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-6.38, 2.82], t(104) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.42], t(104) = 0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-4.07, 2.58], t(104) = -0.44, p = 0.660; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.51 (95% CI [20.88, 24.15], t(104) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.06, 2.53], t(104) = 0.20, p = 0.840; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.52], t(104) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.14], t(104) = -0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.37 (95% CI [23.39, 27.36], t(104) = 25.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-2.22, 3.36], t(104) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.74], t(104) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.15], t(104) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.26 (95% CI [16.94, 21.58], t(104) = 16.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [-0.38, 6.14], t(104) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.60, 3.06], t(104) = 0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-4.52, 2.14], t(104) = -0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.89 (95% CI [9.62, 12.15], t(104) = 16.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.50], t(104) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.51], t(104) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.63, 0.41], t(104) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [13.49, 17.25], t(104) = 16.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-3.26, 2.02], t(104) = -0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.80], t(104) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-4.07, 1.01], t(104) = -1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.94 (95% CI [19.81, 24.07], t(104) = 20.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-2.29, 3.69], t(104) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.61], t(104) = 0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-4.49, 1.27], t(104) = -1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [14.82, 17.69], t(104) = 22.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.60], t(104) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.59], t(104) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.65, 2.39], t(104) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.25, 14.26], t(104) = 25.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.18], t(104) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.17], t(104) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.46], t(104) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.68, 17.63], t(104) = 33.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.60], t(104) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.16], t(104) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.07], t(104) = -0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.89 (95% CI [10.86, 12.91], t(104) = 22.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.86, 95% CI [0.43, 3.30], t(104) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.13, 1.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.85], t(104) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.58])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-2.25, 0.49], t(104) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.54 (95% CI [26.75, 30.34], t(104) = 31.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.10, 95% CI [0.58, 5.62], t(104) = 2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.10, 1.00])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.66], t(104) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-3.21, 1.12], t(104) = -0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [24.58, 30.90], t(104) = 17.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-5.85, 3.03], t(104) = -0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.46, 3.04], t(104) = 0.69, p = 0.491; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-4.19, 2.24], t(104) = -0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.89 (95% CI [12.23, 15.54], t(104) = 16.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.15, 3.49], t(104) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.80], t(104) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.64], t(104) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.23 (95% CI [14.91, 17.54], t(104) = 24.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.62], t(104) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.50], t(104) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.02, 1.30], t(104) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.11 (95% CI [27.32, 32.91], t(104) = 21.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.94, 95% CI [-1.99, 5.87], t(104) = 0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.05], t(104) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-3.36, 3.58], t(104) = 0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.28) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.39, 13.33], t(104) = 53.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.27], t(104) = -1.14, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.85], t(104) = 0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.61])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.16], t(104) = 0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.67, 15.93], t(104) = 25.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.81], t(104) = 0.28, p = 0.778; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.93], t(104) = -0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.22], t(104) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.84e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.51 (95% CI [12.17, 14.86], t(104) = 19.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.91], t(104) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 3.36e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.32], t(104) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.81, 2.32], t(104) = 0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.31 (95% CI [26.07, 30.56], t(104) = 24.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.92, 3.40], t(104) = 0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.99, 1.96], t(104) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-2.94, 4.13], t(104) = 0.33, p = 0.741; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.11 (95% CI [17.77, 20.46], t(104) = 27.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.69], t(104) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.88], t(104) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.24], t(104) = -0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.48, 15.15], t(104) = 33.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.75], t(104) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.26], t(104) = 0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.25], t(104) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.21, 13.31], t(104) = 22.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.90, 95% CI [-3.37, -0.42], t(104) = -2.52, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.05, -0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.47], t(104) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.35], t(104) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.57 (95% CI [9.34, 11.80], t(104) = 16.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.85, 0.60], t(104) = -1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.19], t(104) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.48, 0.35], t(104) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.49 (95% CI [9.24, 11.73], t(104) = 16.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.57, 95% CI [-3.32, 0.18], t(104) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.90], t(104) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.31], t(104) = -0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.66 (95% CI [7.36, 9.96], t(104) = 13.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-2.48, 1.17], t(104) = -0.71, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.02, 2.02], t(104) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [5.53e-03, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.39], t(104) = -2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [26.20, 33.22], t(104) = 16.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.35, 95% CI [-8.28, 1.58], t(104) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.57], t(104) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.34, 95% CI [-6.99, 0.32], t(104) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

354.462

362.564

-174.231

348.462

recovery_stage_a

random

6

358.794

374.997

-173.397

346.794

1.668

3

0.644

recovery_stage_b

null

3

526.165

534.267

-260.083

520.165

recovery_stage_b

random

6

530.507

546.710

-259.254

518.507

1.658

3

0.646

ras_confidence

null

3

644.264

652.365

-319.132

638.264

ras_confidence

random

6

648.203

664.406

-318.102

636.203

2.061

3

0.560

ras_willingness

null

3

443.085

451.187

-218.543

437.085

ras_willingness

random

6

443.865

460.068

-215.932

431.865

5.220

3

0.156

ras_goal

null

3

547.991

556.092

-270.995

541.991

ras_goal

random

6

549.547

565.749

-268.773

537.547

4.444

3

0.217

ras_reliance

null

3

510.880

518.982

-252.440

504.880

ras_reliance

random

6

507.870

524.073

-247.935

495.870

9.010

3

0.029

ras_domination

null

3

483.444

491.545

-238.722

477.444

ras_domination

random

6

483.750

499.953

-235.875

471.750

5.693

3

0.128

symptom

null

3

768.904

777.005

-381.452

762.904

symptom

random

6

773.830

790.033

-380.915

761.830

1.074

3

0.783

slof_work

null

3

623.548

631.649

-308.774

617.548

slof_work

random

6

624.242

640.445

-306.121

612.242

5.306

3

0.151

slof_relationship

null

3

676.017

684.119

-335.009

670.017

slof_relationship

random

6

680.194

696.397

-334.097

668.194

1.824

3

0.610

satisfaction

null

3

720.123

728.225

-357.062

714.123

satisfaction

random

6

723.011

739.214

-355.505

711.011

3.113

3

0.375

mhc_emotional

null

3

573.163

581.265

-283.582

567.163

mhc_emotional

random

6

576.804

593.007

-282.402

564.804

2.359

3

0.501

mhc_social

null

3

668.866

676.967

-331.433

662.866

mhc_social

random

6

672.533

688.736

-330.266

660.533

2.333

3

0.506

mhc_psychological

null

3

695.178

703.279

-344.589

689.178

mhc_psychological

random

6

699.842

716.045

-343.921

687.842

1.336

3

0.721

resilisnce

null

3

611.266

619.368

-302.633

605.266

resilisnce

random

6

616.134

632.336

-302.067

604.134

1.133

3

0.769

social_provision

null

3

543.397

551.499

-268.699

537.397

social_provision

random

6

544.212

560.415

-266.106

532.212

5.185

3

0.159

els_value_living

null

3

522.406

530.508

-258.203

516.406

els_value_living

random

6

524.913

541.115

-256.456

512.913

3.494

3

0.322

els_life_fulfill

null

3

540.608

548.709

-267.304

534.608

els_life_fulfill

random

6

538.139

554.342

-263.070

526.139

8.468

3

0.037

els

null

3

655.268

663.369

-324.634

649.268

els

random

6

654.046

670.249

-321.023

642.046

7.222

3

0.065

social_connect

null

3

761.195

769.296

-377.597

755.195

social_connect

random

6

766.073

782.275

-377.036

754.073

1.122

3

0.772

shs_agency

null

3

638.534

646.635

-316.267

632.534

shs_agency

random

6

642.158

658.361

-315.079

630.158

2.375

3

0.498

shs_pathway

null

3

583.662

591.764

-288.831

577.662

shs_pathway

random

6

588.763

604.966

-288.382

576.763

0.899

3

0.826

shs

null

3

749.439

757.540

-371.719

743.439

shs

random

6

753.776

769.979

-370.888

741.776

1.663

3

0.645

esteem

null

3

390.331

398.432

-192.165

384.331

esteem

random

6

393.943

410.146

-190.972

381.943

2.388

3

0.496

mlq_search

null

3

568.422

576.523

-281.211

562.422

mlq_search

random

6

573.873

590.076

-280.936

561.873

0.549

3

0.908

mlq_presence

null

3

602.090

610.192

-298.045

596.090

mlq_presence

random

6

608.018

624.221

-298.009

596.018

0.072

3

0.995

mlq

null

3

716.490

724.591

-355.245

710.490

mlq

random

6

722.232

738.434

-355.116

710.232

0.258

3

0.968

empower

null

3

586.859

594.961

-290.430

580.859

empower

random

6

590.798

607.000

-289.399

578.798

2.062

3

0.560

ismi_resistance

null

3

510.103

518.205

-252.052

504.103

ismi_resistance

random

6

515.156

531.359

-251.578

503.156

0.947

3

0.814

ismi_discrimation

null

3

544.293

552.394

-269.147

538.293

ismi_discrimation

random

6

543.494

559.697

-265.747

531.494

6.799

3

0.079

sss_affective

null

3

567.334

575.436

-280.667

561.334

sss_affective

random

6

567.551

583.754

-277.776

555.551

5.783

3

0.123

sss_behavior

null

3

583.338

591.439

-288.669

577.338

sss_behavior

random

6

583.848

600.051

-285.924

571.848

5.490

3

0.139

sss_cognitive

null

3

578.118

586.219

-286.059

572.118

sss_cognitive

random

6

576.443

592.646

-282.221

564.443

7.675

3

0.053

sss

null

3

791.582

799.684

-392.791

785.582

sss

random

6

790.865

807.068

-389.432

778.865

6.717

3

0.081

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

35

3.14 ± 1.22

36

3.14 ± 1.22

0.989

0.004

recovery_stage_a

2nd

20

3.28 ± 1.20

-0.138

19

3.48 ± 1.20

-0.348

0.597

-0.205

recovery_stage_b

1st

35

17.86 ± 2.69

36

18.03 ± 2.69

0.790

-0.083

recovery_stage_b

2nd

20

17.52 ± 2.61

0.162

19

18.56 ± 2.60

-0.257

0.219

-0.502

ras_confidence

1st

35

29.71 ± 5.06

36

30.94 ± 5.06

0.309

-0.460

ras_confidence

2nd

20

30.08 ± 4.47

-0.137

19

31.56 ± 4.41

-0.231

0.300

-0.554

ras_willingness

1st

35

11.94 ± 2.01

36

12.28 ± 2.01

0.484

-0.320

ras_willingness

2nd

20

11.30 ± 1.77

0.610

19

12.12 ± 1.74

0.154

0.152

-0.775

ras_goal

1st

35

17.51 ± 3.15

36

17.53 ± 3.15

0.986

-0.007

ras_goal

2nd

20

16.59 ± 2.84

0.507

19

18.14 ± 2.81

-0.338

0.090

-0.852

ras_reliance

1st

35

12.89 ± 2.75

36

13.44 ± 2.75

0.394

-0.422

ras_reliance

2nd

20

13.36 ± 2.38

-0.357

19

14.51 ± 2.34

-0.806

0.130

-0.870

ras_domination

1st

35

10.43 ± 2.21

36

9.44 ± 2.21

0.064

0.626

ras_domination

2nd

20

9.84 ± 2.11

0.373

19

10.25 ± 2.10

-0.512

0.546

-0.259

symptom

1st

35

31.00 ± 9.89

36

29.22 ± 9.89

0.451

0.467

symptom

2nd

20

31.10 ± 8.22

-0.027

19

28.58 ± 8.03

0.169

0.334

0.663

slof_work

1st

35

22.51 ± 4.93

36

22.75 ± 4.93

0.841

-0.118

slof_work

2nd

20

21.82 ± 4.13

0.350

19

21.46 ± 4.04

0.648

0.785

0.180

slof_relationship

1st

35

25.37 ± 5.99

36

25.94 ± 5.99

0.688

-0.196

slof_relationship

2nd

20

24.35 ± 5.21

0.350

19

25.54 ± 5.12

0.139

0.473

-0.407

satisfaction

1st

35

19.26 ± 7.01

36

22.14 ± 7.01

0.087

-0.741

satisfaction

2nd

20

19.99 ± 6.27

-0.188

19

21.68 ± 6.19

0.117

0.398

-0.436

mhc_emotional

1st

35

10.89 ± 3.82

36

11.61 ± 3.82

0.426

-0.413

mhc_emotional

2nd

20

11.33 ± 3.27

-0.254

19

10.95 ± 3.21

0.378

0.713

0.218

mhc_social

1st

35

15.37 ± 5.68

36

14.75 ± 5.68

0.646

0.211

mhc_social

2nd

20

16.40 ± 5.00

-0.348

19

14.24 ± 4.93

0.172

0.178

0.730

mhc_psychological

1st

35

21.94 ± 6.43

36

22.64 ± 6.43

0.650

-0.208

mhc_psychological

2nd

20

22.54 ± 5.66

-0.178

19

21.62 ± 5.58

0.304

0.612

0.274

resilisnce

1st

35

16.26 ± 4.34

36

16.83 ± 4.34

0.577

-0.245

resilisnce

2nd

20

16.44 ± 3.86

-0.077

19

17.38 ± 3.81

-0.234

0.443

-0.402

social_provision

1st

35

13.26 ± 3.03

36

14.03 ± 3.03

0.287

-0.419

social_provision

2nd

20

12.33 ± 2.77

0.502

19

14.00 ± 2.74

0.013

0.061

-0.907

els_value_living

1st

35

16.66 ± 2.94

36

17.89 ± 2.94

0.081

-0.840

els_value_living

2nd

20

16.93 ± 2.57

-0.186

19

17.97 ± 2.52

-0.055

0.205

-0.709

els_life_fulfill

1st

35

11.89 ± 3.09

36

13.75 ± 3.09

0.013

-1.172

els_life_fulfill

2nd

20

12.78 ± 2.72

-0.563

19

13.76 ± 2.68

-0.009

0.259

-0.617

els

1st

35

28.54 ± 5.42

36

31.64 ± 5.42

0.018

-1.239

els

2nd

20

29.69 ± 4.65

-0.459

19

31.74 ± 4.57

-0.040

0.168

-0.820

social_connect

1st

35

27.74 ± 9.54

36

26.33 ± 9.54

0.536

0.383

social_connect

2nd

20

28.53 ± 7.93

-0.214

19

26.15 ± 7.75

0.051

0.345

0.648

shs_agency

1st

35

13.89 ± 4.99

36

15.06 ± 4.99

0.326

-0.464

shs_agency

2nd

20

14.16 ± 4.37

-0.110

19

15.80 ± 4.30

-0.296

0.240

-0.650

shs_pathway

1st

35

16.23 ± 3.97

36

17.00 ± 3.97

0.415

-0.402

shs_pathway

2nd

20

16.57 ± 3.44

-0.179

19

16.98 ± 3.38

0.010

0.709

-0.213

shs

1st

35

30.11 ± 8.45

36

32.06 ± 8.45

0.336

-0.484

shs

2nd

20

30.74 ± 7.29

-0.156

19

32.79 ± 7.17

-0.184

0.377

-0.512

esteem

1st

35

12.86 ± 1.42

36

12.47 ± 1.42

0.255

0.316

esteem

2nd

20

13.02 ± 1.41

-0.131

19

12.81 ± 1.41

-0.273

0.640

0.174

mlq_search

1st

35

14.80 ± 3.41

36

15.03 ± 3.41

0.779

-0.103

mlq_search

2nd

20

14.42 ± 3.17

0.172

19

14.99 ± 3.15

0.015

0.571

-0.259

mlq_presence

1st

35

13.51 ± 4.07

36

13.53 ± 4.07

0.989

-0.006

mlq_presence

2nd

20

13.39 ± 3.71

0.051

19

13.66 ± 3.67

-0.053

0.822

-0.110

mlq

1st

35

28.31 ± 6.79

36

28.56 ± 6.79

0.881

-0.058

mlq

2nd

20

27.80 ± 6.23

0.123

19

28.64 ± 6.17

-0.021

0.674

-0.201

empower

1st

35

19.11 ± 4.05

36

19.92 ± 4.05

0.406

-0.425

empower

2nd

20

18.85 ± 3.48

0.140

19

19.25 ± 3.42

0.352

0.717

-0.213

ismi_resistance

1st

35

14.31 ± 2.53

36

14.89 ± 2.53

0.341

-0.307

ismi_resistance

2nd

20

14.49 ± 2.43

-0.094

19

14.76 ± 2.42

0.070

0.731

-0.143

ismi_discrimation

1st

35

12.26 ± 3.17

36

10.36 ± 3.17

0.014

1.160

ismi_discrimation

2nd

20

11.74 ± 2.78

0.317

19

10.78 ± 2.74

-0.259

0.283

0.584

sss_affective

1st

35

10.57 ± 3.71

36

9.44 ± 3.71

0.204

0.690

sss_affective

2nd

20

10.77 ± 3.16

-0.123

19

8.58 ± 3.09

0.529

0.031

1.342

sss_behavior

1st

35

10.49 ± 3.76

36

8.92 ± 3.76

0.083

0.778

sss_behavior

2nd

20

10.17 ± 3.34

0.154

19

8.19 ± 3.29

0.361

0.064

0.985

sss_cognitive

1st

35

8.66 ± 3.92

36

8.00 ± 3.92

0.483

0.400

sss_cognitive

2nd

20

9.68 ± 3.31

-0.621

19

7.20 ± 3.24

0.486

0.020

1.507

sss

1st

35

29.71 ± 10.59

36

26.36 ± 10.59

0.186

0.800

sss

2nd

20

30.73 ± 8.84

-0.242

19

24.04 ± 8.64

0.554

0.019

1.596

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(98.43) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.57)

2st

t(105.65) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.96)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(95.05) = 0.27, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.44)

2st

t(105.69) = 1.24, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.69)

ras_confidence

1st

t(80.73) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.16 to 3.62)

2st

t(104.84) = 1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.34 to 4.30)

ras_willingness

1st

t(80.41) = 0.70, p = 0.484, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.28)

2st

t(104.66) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.93)

ras_goal

1st

t(83.20) = 0.02, p = 0.986, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.50)

2st

t(105.69) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.34)

ras_reliance

1st

t(78.57) = 0.86, p = 0.394, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.86)

2st

t(103.24) = 1.53, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.65)

ras_domination

1st

t(91.46) = -1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.06)

2st

t(105.84) = 0.61, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.74)

symptom

1st

t(74.89) = -0.76, p = 0.451, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.45 to 2.90)

2st

t(97.00) = -0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-7.69 to 2.64)

slof_work

1st

t(75.53) = 0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.10 to 2.57)

2st

t(98.52) = -0.27, p = 0.785, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.24)

slof_relationship

1st

t(78.82) = 0.40, p = 0.688, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.26 to 3.41)

2st

t(103.48) = 0.72, p = 0.473, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-2.09 to 4.47)

satisfaction

1st

t(82.02) = 1.73, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.43 to 6.19)

2st

t(105.38) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.26 to 5.65)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(77.63) = 0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.53)

2st

t(102.15) = -0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.44 to 1.68)

mhc_social

1st

t(80.28) = -0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.30 to 2.06)

2st

t(104.59) = -1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-5.31 to 1.00)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(80.30) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.73)

2st

t(104.60) = -0.51, p = 0.612, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-4.49 to 2.66)

resilisnce

1st

t(81.40) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.63)

2st

t(105.15) = 0.77, p = 0.443, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.49 to 3.38)

social_provision

1st

t(84.94) = 1.07, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.20)

2st

t(105.93) = 1.89, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.08 to 3.42)

els_value_living

1st

t(79.29) = 1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.62)

2st

t(103.89) = 1.28, p = 0.205, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.66)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(80.03) = 2.54, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (0.40 to 3.33)

2st

t(104.43) = 1.14, p = 0.259, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.69)

els

1st

t(77.69) = 2.41, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (0.54 to 5.66)

2st

t(102.23) = 1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.88 to 4.98)

social_connect

1st

t(74.92) = -0.62, p = 0.536, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.92 to 3.10)

2st

t(97.08) = -0.95, p = 0.345, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-7.37 to 2.60)

shs_agency

1st

t(79.62) = 0.99, p = 0.326, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.19 to 3.53)

2st

t(104.14) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.11 to 4.39)

shs_pathway

1st

t(78.64) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.65)

2st

t(103.30) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.58)

shs

1st

t(78.26) = 0.97, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.05 to 5.93)

2st

t(102.91) = 0.89, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-2.54 to 6.65)

esteem

1st

t(101.28) = -1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.28)

2st

t(105.71) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.68)

mlq_search

1st

t(87.52) = 0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.83)

2st

t(106.00) = 0.57, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.58)

mlq_presence

1st

t(84.25) = 0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.94)

2st

t(105.86) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.08 to 2.61)

mlq

1st

t(85.28) = 0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.96 to 3.45)

2st

t(105.95) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-3.10 to 4.77)

empower

1st

t(77.89) = 0.83, p = 0.406, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.72)

2st

t(102.49) = 0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.60)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(93.42) = 0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.77)

2st

t(105.75) = 0.35, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.81)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(80.12) = -2.52, p = 0.014, Cohen d = 1.16, 95% CI (-3.39 to -0.40)

2st

t(104.49) = -1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.71 to 0.80)

sss_affective

1st

t(76.85) = -1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.63)

2st

t(101.02) = -2.19, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 1.34, 95% CI (-4.18 to -0.21)

sss_behavior

1st

t(81.09) = -1.76, p = 0.083, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.35 to 0.21)

2st

t(105.01) = -1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.99, 95% CI (-4.09 to 0.12)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(76.05) = -0.71, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.51 to 1.20)

2st

t(99.60) = -2.36, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-4.56 to -0.40)

sss

1st

t(75.24) = -1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-8.36 to 1.66)

2st

t(97.85) = -2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-12.25 to -1.13)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(52.74) = 1.16, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(50.44) = 0.84, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.78)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.62) = 0.73, p = 0.936, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.32)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.47) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.85) = 1.08, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.76)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.57) = 2.54, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.92)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(48.28) = 1.67, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.79) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.82)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.10) = -2.03, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.58 to -0.01)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.69) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.46)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.26) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.92 to 2.01)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.11) = -1.19, p = 0.482, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.46)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.40) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.39 to 1.37)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.41) = -0.96, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.15 to 1.11)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.96) = 0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.04)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.74) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.13)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.92) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.02)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.28) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.03)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.14) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.70)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.81) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.57 to 2.19)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(42.08) = 0.94, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.36)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.60) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.21)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.41) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.83 to 3.30)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(55.04) = 0.92, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.06)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(46.10) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.35)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.39) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.92) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.53 to 2.70)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.24) = -1.11, p = 0.548, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.55)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(49.43) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.02)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.32) = 0.82, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.46)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.73) = -1.66, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.80) = -1.15, p = 0.515, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.55)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.35) = -1.52, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.26)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.96) = -1.73, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.03 to 0.38)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(51.11) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.72)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(49.06) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.90)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.07) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.03)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(41.93) = -1.98, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.17) = -1.66, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.20)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.12) = 1.15, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.30)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(47.13) = -1.24, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.36)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.53) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.50)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(39.80) = -1.12, p = 0.537, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.56)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.23) = -1.13, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.85 to 0.80)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(42.64) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.68 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(40.71) = 0.82, p = 0.836, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.54)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(41.87) = 1.13, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.86)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(41.88) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.67)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.37) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.64)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(43.97) = -1.64, p = 0.215, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.21)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.44) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(41.76) = 1.83, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.89)

els

1st vs 2st

t(40.74) = 1.48, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.71)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.54) = 0.69, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.11)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(41.58) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.85)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.15) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.54)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(40.99) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.13)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(53.16) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.87)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(45.18) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.97)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(43.66) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.37)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.13) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.07 to 2.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(40.83) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.92)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(48.16) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.30)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(41.80) = -1.03, p = 0.619, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.37) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.23)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.23) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.94)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.02) = 2.00, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.05)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.67) = 0.78, p = 0.884, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.65)

Plot

Clinical significance